Anitha, a 17-year-old Dalit girl, allegedly took her life after it become known that Tamil Nadu would not be exempt from the National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test.
BJP leader Ajay Kumar Agarwal has challenged a 2005 Delhi high court order quashing charges against Europe-based industrialists, the Hinduja brothers.
Delhi’s Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University has come under fire for denying admission to a student suffering from thalassemia.
The written submissions on behalf of the petitioners have relied on the recent landmark Supreme Court right to privacy judgement and the NALSA verdict, among others.
Why is the Modi government not showing the same support for criminalising marital rape as it did with outlawing triple talaq. After all, gender violence is not religion, class or caste specific.
Finance minister Arun Jaitley asserted that the government over the last two-three years has made tax evasion difficult and that has come as a “rude shock” to many.
Drafted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the proposal was part of the agenda at a meeting to discuss issues relating to the implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The high court also rejected Shahabuddin’s plea challenging the sentence awarded by the Siwan district court on December 11, 2015.
The Supreme Court has said that now that the deadline has been extended, it will hear a batch of Aadhaar-related petitions in November.
The Supreme Court’s judgement on triple talaq outlines the true meaning and spirit of the Quran on the anvil of individualism, the rule of law and human rights enunciated in the constitution.
“The question is what evidences the courts will rely upon in such circumstances, as there can be no lasting evidence in case of sexual acts between a man and his own wife.”
The district court, headed by additional chief judicial magistrate Barjinder Pal Singh, dismissed his bail plea on Tuesday afternoon.
Is it time to change tactics with regard to privacy and Aadhaar? It seems likely that the Act will be upheld as constitutional, when looked at whether it falls foul of our fundamental right to privacy.
The apex court set aside a Gujarat high court order that asked the state government to pay for the reconstruction and repair work on religious structures.
Various lawyers’ associations have termed the government’s initial action as ‘interference’ since the constitution clearly separates powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
Senior members of the bar and lawyers’ associations have slammed the government’s allegations and claimed that the move was to ensure that no systems of accountability were in place ahead of Ganesh Chaturthi.
If the legislature is serious about introducing gender parity in personal laws, it should not focus all its energies on one particular religion.
Justice Misra was part of the bench that confirmed the death sentence of the convicts in the December 16 rape case and passed the order for mandatory singing of the national anthem in cinema halls.
A special CBI court will begin hearing arguments over sentencing at 2:30 pm in the district jail at Sunaria where the Dera Sacha Sauda chief is lodged.
While Justice Kaul’s opinion identifies a ‘right to be forgotten’, India’s upcoming data protection framework needs to resolve a number of hurdles before we carve out such a right.
Instead of developing jurisprudence based on the intersectionality of gender and religious identity, we are presented with a laboriously lengthy and impotent decision which reflects the judges’ lack of knowledge on feminist jurisprudence.
The right to privacy judgment not only learns from the past but also sets the wheel of liberty and freedom for the future.
The court’s judgment implies that the state will have to be cautious of its activities even before it begins implementing them. Projects or initiatives that involve collection of personal data would have to take into account explicit limitations on how such information can be used.
The eight-judge bench has been overruled and the Aadhaar issue has been left unresolved. So where is the question of winning?’’, former Attorney General Rohatgi said.
We must address the diversity within the Muslim community and achieve representation, democratisation and accountability to truly fight for women’s equality.
The judgment – in the way it defines privacy and dignity of an individual – has far reaching implications on the rights of LGBTQI individuals.
In conversation with Prasanna S., one of the lawyers who assisted senior counsel Shyam Divan in representing a group of petitioners challenging the Aadhaar project.
While the judgement does not strictly defines the right to privacy or catalogues all of its parts, it has attempted to address the broad arguments that are used in justification of and in opposition to privacy.
Digital privacy is a subset of the right to privacy, which can be fully exercised only if a good data protection system is in place.
The judgment makes it clear that in a democracy, the rights of minorities, especially discrete and insular ones, are as sacred as those conferred on citizens to protect their freedoms and liberties.
Justice A.P. Shah said, “There is very little scope now for those wanting to support Section 377…invading the bedroom can’t be considered reasonable restriction [on the fundamental right to privacy].”
The nine-judge bench has now asked the government to come up with a data protection mechanism that balances the rights of individuals and the interests of state.
The arguments advanced by the Modi government’s attorneys general over the last three years have consistently maintained that privacy cannot be viewed as a fundamental right.
Vinod Dua discusses the Supreme Court verdict on the right to privacy and the rape case against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, the head of Dera Sacha Sauda.
The judgment will, however, allow citizens to legally challenge any government action deemed as a violation of privacy.
Does the right to privacy becoming a fundamental right mean the Aadhaar programme is unconstitutional or will be shut down? The Wire explains.
The judgment will need to reinvigorate a conversation on how today’s data protection models need to be reconsidered in light of the changing dynamics of information privacy.
Full text of the judgment by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman declaring privacy to be a fundamental right.
Full text of the judgment by Justice A.M. Sapre declaring privacy to be a fundamental right.
Full text of the judgment by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul declaring privacy to be a fundamental right.